"JTAspin" said:
Hey Will,
I may not be as up to speed as some but, could you give us a long term outlook, maybe a best/worst and realistic outlook at least in your educated opinion of where we will be in the next 5, 10, 15 years or so………..assuming things maintain their current trajectory. For example do you think that when i retire in 25 years(hopefully 20) I will have many more opportunities for Muskies at a bunch more locations throughout the state……….

Also good thread Vano…………..

So many factors go into what will happen but if I had to guess…

In the next ten years:
Any expansion is completely dependent on renovations which includes a new building a the hatchery. So with that in mind more locations isn't likely in the next 10 years. [size=200]Maybe[/size] a few new waters and if I had my way those would include a couple large rivers. With hatchery expansion the sky is really the limit as long as spring egg collection is a success.

What you can plan to see are improved opportunities, particularly in the north where supplemental stocking combined with the new regs should create more fishable populations.

Farther down the road:
With any luck the state will turn around and the hatchery will get the money for the expansion that should have happened in the early 2000's. The broodstock lakes will be producing better quality and more eggs than the St Clair system and the state will be stocking 100 thousand muskies each year. Much of this will include full scale restoration projects along the Great Lakes shorelines.

"Will Schultz" said:
[quote="Adam Minnick"]Thanks for the info Will. It'll be interesting to hear some answers from biologists. Knowing what you know, once the "spoken for fish" are placed, what would your strategy be over the next 5 yrs? Assuming we have fish to stock……hypothetical question here. How would you prioritize other fisheries while the brood stocks were being established? I realize it heavily depends on the numbers, but assuming there were suffucient numbers "left over"…… supplement northern waters with existing / low population? start stocking "new" GLS waters where fish will should spawn? start bumping GLS into Northern S. inland lakes…..? One more than the other or slowly do all three?

Ooohh.. you're giving me the power to put 35-50 thousand muskies around the state each year? IMO it's pretty easy. We have established fisheries that should be maintained around the state, by this I'm talking about the lakes stocked for the last ten years with NMUS unless it is naturalized. Maintenance on these would take no more than 1/2 of the fish. The other fish go to supplemental stocking where needed. Until the broodstock lakes are up and running and the hatchery has had $2 million in improvements there shouldn't be any "new waters" added.

Cool….I'm assuming the established fisheries will be maintained with the same considerations with the NS, just now with GLS. No difference. By "new" I was referring mostly too restoration / large rivers, and that is at least 10 years out correct? Lower Grand, Muskegon, Manistee etc…these will not see fish from St. Clair takings, but brood stocks when established. Thanks for putting up with all of this, seems to be a popular thread though (thought it would, just slipped through the cracks last time and I forgot to jump start til now.)

"Steve S" said:
Is every lake in the state supposed to have GL muskie or is it a split between them and northern strain?

We have very few lakes that are even "supposed" to have muskies. Of those that should many don't have them or have very few. The lakes that should have NMUS are all in th UP to the best of my knowledge. My opinion is that the state made a huge mistake ever starting with NMUS and now we are just getting on track with the right strain. Many of our lakes have outlets, Hudson included, and those should have never received NMUS.

You are The Man! Michigan Muskie Alliance President Emeritus

While we are on this topic. Will have you been on Big Bear Lake before. It is only about an hour and a half from where my parents have a place up there. What kind of lake is it, structure and depth wise? 5 or so years before it is even fishable? Between Big Bear and the Ausable Ponds looks like I may have some nearby options in the near future.

"JTAspin" said:
While we are on this topic. Will have you been on Big Bear Lake before. It is only about an hour and a half from where my parents have a place up there. What kind of lake is it, structure and depth wise? 5 or so years before it is even fishable? Between Big Bear and the Ausable Ponds looks like I may have some nearby options in the near future.

No, I haven't been there. If I recall from the descriptions it is clear/dark water, sand substrate, weeds on the breaks. Here's the map:
<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … R_LAKE.PDF">[Permission to view this media is denied]

Yes, probably best to give them some time since this is a brood lake. Maybe even allow them eight years. I wouldn't be opposed to what they did in WI on Long, a moratorium on muskie fishing at least until the lake is established.

Will,

Were the shoreline spawners recorded or observed in the tracking study?

Yes to both.

Will,

were you talking about the clam fish when you were referencing shoreline spawners or were they present in Skegemog as well?